A chronicle of Issues, Studies, News and other items of interest regarding Mormonism (2006-2013)

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Fwd: Provo Herald editorial on SB96

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/161718/

[Provo] Daily Herald, Thursday, January 26, 2006

Utah's legislative Inquisition

Now that the Utah Senate has passed a bill ordering the State Board ofEducation to establish policies and curriculum requirements that, ineffect, introduce religion into the public schools, it falls to theHouse of Representatives to remove the ambiguity and restore commonsense.

Senate Bill 96 was initiated by West Jordan Republican D. ChrisButtars and is being carried in the House by Rep. Jim Ferrin of Orem.

Buttars began by trying to force the schools to teach "divine design,"a concept that can only be described as a logical non-sequitur. Itsays because the universe is complex, an intelligent force (read God)must have been behind it. Failing at this, Buttars fell back to thecurrent bill which purports to balance competing "theories" on theorigin of life. His Senate colleagues threw him a bone by approvingthe bill 17-12.

There are four main reasons the House should amend or reject S.B. 96:

The bill is flawed because it requires action on a false premise. Iterroneously suggests that there are competing theories on the originof life upon which various scientists disagree.

In fact, there is very little science of any kind suggesting how lifebegan, let alone competing theories. The investigation has only justbegun, and a bit of sketchy chemistry does not a theory make. But ifthere are no competing theories, then S.B. 96 is moot on its face andthe State Board of Education should be free to ignore it. It requiresan impossibility. Because multiple theories on the origin of life donot exist, schools by definition cannot endorse one theory or discussthe variety of others, even if they wanted to.

Its language is ambiguous and suppresses honest dialog.

Not only does S.B. 96 address the origins of life, it demandscurriculum requirements "on any theory regarding ... the origins orpresent state of the human race." The latter phrase isincomprehensible, but we'd say it attempts to make reference to thetheory of evolution -- which is an actual theory supported by a vastamount of external evidence. Evolution is widely accepted as fact, asthe Big Bang is accepted as the starting point of the universe. Thereis overwhelming physical and mathematical evidence for both. The BigBang was spectacularly reinforced by the WMAP probe launched in 2002.Suppressing a teacher's ability to report the wide agreement on thesepoints is intellectually dishonest.

Even if the words of every teacher were monitored and controlled bythe Board of Education, this bill would have no meaningful benefit.

The Utah Legislature does not need to protect the religioussensibilities of students in science classes, nor is this the properrole of the state. People have been balancing science and religion intheir personal philosophies for centuries. If a teacher says thatevolution is currently a widely accepted fact ... well, that is areasonable statement that is not subject to challenge except from afew on the intellectual fringe. Worries that kids will lose theirfaith in droves because of an authoritative secular teacher aremisplaced.

S.B. 96 is a thinly veiled attempt to force religious viewpoints intopublic schools. This is not the proper role of government, nor is itpractical. If competing religious notions are treated as scientifictheories, science class will bog down in philosophy.

Faith is the personal and private domain of the individual. In thequest for truth, one is free to choose science alone, faith alone, orsome combination of the two. But that reconciliation process is amatter to be worked out by every free-thinking individual. It is notappropriate to encode this in law.

Science obviously cannot explain everything, nor does it claim to. Theaccelerating process of discovery raises questions that outpaceanswers as people continue to inquire, hypothesize, theorize andchallenge. In the face of this explosion, all science does is attemptto explain things in rational -- rather than spiritual -- terms. It isproper for the public schools to pursue secular science without guilt,and for the schools to avoid muddying the water with faith-basedarguments. Let that discussion happen outside of school, or at leastin philosophy class.

Religion and science are not necessarily incompatible, but whether andhow they relate is not a matter for the Board of Education or theLegislature. This is the key. Faith offers some answers that sciencecannot. Certainly a great many people are convinced that theirreligious views are correct. But a person's sense of certainty doesnot turn faith into science.

Science and religion may enhance one another, but reconciliation mustnever be forced. That process is properly left to the individualalone.

This bill is badly in need of amendment -- or a quiet death. It issymbolism at best. At worst, it undermines independent thought andestablishes the Utah Legislature as a tribunal of truth. That is whatthe Inquisition did.